[Foundation-l] [Fwd: A chapters-related question]

[Steven Walling]

I don't think we need to formalize these kinds of groups at all, unless they
want the same kind of official support that chapters get. The core of
Wikimedia is self-organizing, ad hoc groups, so what possible purpose would
it serve to build additional rules and conventions around them if they're
not asking for it already?

It's not that I think it's a definitively bad idea. I just don't think we
should create more organizational overheard unless we really need to. At the
moment, I don't see anyone asking for this kind of thing.

Steven

On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:03 AM, Anders Wennersten <
anders.wennersten at bonetmail.com> wrote:

> I agree  with you analysis, and that we need to come up with some
> definition of entities not being a chapter but in need of official
> recognition and having some rights being formally regulated .
>
> I would suggest we
> 1. come up with a name for these types of groups - "Friends of..",
> "Associates of ..." or something like that.
> 2.  start to look into in how to regulate the relation to these new
> entities and how to control them. Actually I think Mike Godwins proposal
> for a new Chapter agreement, while being overly controlling for a
> chapter, would be appropriate as a start for a contract with these new
> entities. Yearly renewal periods and regular reporting should be OK in
> these cases..
>
>  Anders Wennersten
> treasurer Wikimedia Sverige
> Member of ChapCom
>
>
>
> > Aside from the new chapters, right now the Board of Trustees is looking
> > at what kinds of related groups we want to have relationships with.
> > (What prompts this directly is the case of Wikimedia Brazil, which was
> > approved to become a chapter last year, but whose organizers have since
> > decided they did not want to proceed as a formal entity at this time.
> > However, I want to ask about the general principle, not the specific
> > case.) The basic question is, what can or should we do to encourage
> > grassroots groups that want to support our mission, but may not fit into
> > the chapters framework?
> >
> > There are various possibilities here. One example is interest groups
> > that aren't tied to geography, the way the chapters are. I always cite
> > the idea of an Association of Blind Wikipedians, who might wish to
> > organize to promote work on accessibility issues. As with the Brazilian
> > situation, informal groups could also fit local conditions better
> > sometimes, or serve as a proto-chapter stage of development. Maybe
> > there's a benefit in having an association with some durability and
> > continuation, but without going to the effort of incorporation and
> > formal agreements on trademarks and such. It could also make sense to
> > have an organization form for a specific project and then disband after
> > it is completed, such as with Wikimania (somebody can correct me if I'm
> > wrong, but I understand the Gdansk team is planning something like this
> > as distinct from Wikimedia Polska).
> >
> > Anyway, I would like to invite ideas and discussion on this. Is this
> > something we should do? What kinds of models are people interested in?
> > How should we appropriately recognize and work with volunteer-organized
> > groups? And in all of this, how would we make it both distinct from and
> > compatible with the current structure of chapter organizations?
> >
> > --Michael Snow
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Internal-l mailing list
> > Internal-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/internal-l
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>